Search results

Science is the process of throwing out ideas based on the evidence, reason and logic. This allows the process to operate upon literally any idea.

So Tulsi is a Russian spy?

Wait. But Brain told me that this was the fairest election ever and that we should all just move on.

I don't know about that, but I'm not a dictionary. :) I was using them as synonyms. Maybe usage of the term has evolved. I might investigate your source. I happily box all such things under the blanket idea of a rational investigation. Well, sure. The point is that the theory should then...

Remedial logic and remedial maths. If you want to talk about x, you need to know how x forms. That is not equal to: If you want to talk about y, you have to believe z. The question is simple. How is radioactive material formed?

A million?

If you don't know how it is formed, you are going to be a paperweight in the discussion.

It's clear that you've never read the Bible

Well, let me reassure you: Jesus' return ain't going to be on a campaign rally. Think sword.

Before anyone starts talking radioactivity, they have to answer the question of how such material is generated.

Guess what? "Billions of years" is just a theory. No, it's not. No, it doesn't. ...imply an explanation that represents a substantiated and not speculative idea. Darwinists love to pretend that it is others who misuse words when they can't get the simplest aspects of the philosophy of...

Lol. That's cute. You think democracy works.

OK. I can respect your analysis even if I don't share your apparent enamor for Bell. :) The point I'm trying to get across to the Darwin crowd is that there is no difference in the scientific process regardless of the power of the theory being discussed. They are never confirmed and they...

The same way I would approach any other idea: Does it seem reasonable? (No, in this case) Do I have reason to be skeptical of it? (Yes) Am I interested and capable of presenting a useful rebuttal or alternative? (not really) Why is Bell's idea in particular the one you ask this question with?

Time for some remedial classes. Nope. Instead of just insisting that I'm wrong, accept the invitation to explain why evidence can be appropriately used to solidify a theory. We know the part about how when evidence does not falsify a theory, we can be a little more confident that the theory...

The EU is thinking about boosting defense spending. :LOL:

The stunt of insisting on a coherent, rational philosophy of science? Nope. The key difference is that we are both likely to cede to the authority of the medical experts without one of us saying that the evidence shows their idea to be wrong. If I were to disagree with you on smoking, it would...

Logic must be your second language. Evidence can never improve or modify a theory. It can only ever falsify them.

Was that a retraction? Evidence never confirms a theory. It can only ever falsify them.

Nope. Evidence is used to overthrow theories. It never confirms them.